A Lawyer for the Future: The Specialized Generalist
When I started as a lawyer in the early 80´ the type of lawyer that was revered was the generalist. The generalist was not necessarily an expert in any particular field –although they were always stronger in some areas than others- but he/she could advise on a variety of topics with authority and relate them in intelligent ways. He/she was the preferred type of lawyer by many clients, since they could rely on his/her judgement and wisdom. Specialization was not considered necessarily a good thing, since it could limit the scope of knowledge and understanding of the law. Internet has not yet started and knowledge had a different configuration. It was the kingdom of the generalist.
The 90´ and internet brought a different perspective. Knowledge became more and more specialized. A generalist approach was considered shallow and, in many cases, ineffective to solve any problems. Being specialized became something critical for surviving in the new world of information and knowledge. All topics, matters and problems became segmented in smaller portions to allow a closer and more specialied analysis. In the area of hard sciences this was particularly strong. But also in the law. The traditional generalist became a professional of other times, almost a dinosaur, and inevitably useless in sophisticated contexts. Only traditional and old fashion businesses would still prefer this type of advise. It was now the kingdom of specialists.
But the process continued to expand as clients evolved to be more sophisticated. It became more difficult to define a valued specialist, since the expertize gap with clients narrowed significantly and they expected more innovative solutions than traditional ones. And also problems became more complex. As Heidi K. Garner, a Harvard professor, explains in her book (“Smart Collaboration”, The Harvard Press, 2016”), the client´s problems are increasingly VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous). This increasing complexity works on two levels: (1) different areas of knowledge converge on the same problem (and not just areas of law, but also of other fields like economics and science) requiring an effective blend of capabilities, and (2) the speed at which solutions need to be found and provided.
The type of complexity described above cannot be dealt with by individuals working alone. Specific experts must work together with sufficient speed and quality to respond to clients´ needs. This is the global world in which the legal industry needs to fit to remain competitive. Working together in this context requires a specific type of collaboration, where information flows fast and intelligently, and the group is able to detect fast who is the most qualified individual to perform a specific task or respond to a certain question.
This work dynamics –which is quite different from the traditional format of experts working on their own and with great autonomy- requires two important features: (1) a high level of communication and trust among members of the group, and (2) a broader knowledge basis by the individual members. Let me explain.
In terms of group functioning, an important aspect is the type of relationship or bond among the group members. Note that I am not talking about friendship, but rather about such a close working relationship –which includes high levels of professional and personal trust- that members can work very confortable with each other, knowing –with high levels of accuracy- what other members will do, and how will they do it. Working in this fashion implies that these type of relationships bring a specific value to the service, which is different from the individual values contributed by professionals. And the more complex the matters to attend, the more relevant this group value becomes.
But these group working relationships can only become effective if the individuals are adequately prepared to function in this environment. A pure specialist that work within the borders of its specific expertize, and with little interest and interaction with members of other fields, will find difficult to provide it´s own value in complex matters that require a combined blend of knowledge. So the isolated expert needs to become a broader and more connected professional, that I will call the “Specialized Generalist”. There are two elements that a Specialized Generalist should have to distinguish him/herself from the traditional expert:
(a) Personal capacibilities and willingness to collaborate and interact with experts from other fields (of the law and otherwise), accepting that the final product will be a complex combination of knowledge. This is not just a matter of natural inclinations and strenghts, but require training and investment from the firm in developing these soft skills in their lawyers.
(b) Technical and knowledge education that would give a broader scope to lawyers about a variety of matters, and not within the limited range of a specific expertize. I understand that this might seem ilogical or, at least, impractical. But the truth is that an efficient interaction among areas of expertize, requires a basic understanding that would allow these experts to “speak to each other”. And this is not just a “good relationship” point, but also a content discussion. This should start in law school, where a broader variety of subjects should be tought, like mathematics, accounting, management and others. In the firm, training activities and programs should be promoted to help experts to reach out and understand issues that pertain to other areas of expertize. Would this mean the end of the expert as we know it? Not really, because the specialized knowledge would still be absolutely necessary; except that the way to display that expertize would be different, more interactive and collaborative.
The legal profession is changing, maybe faster and deeper than we can perceive. Latin America sometimes feels like a safer place to be against these wave of changes. But that could be deceiving and provide a wrong viewpoint of reality. In a global world changes only take so much time to get to where we are, specially if our clients are already suffering those changes. The categories of the past, like generalists vs specialists, might have lost much of their meanings. New categories and formulas need to be found and experimented. The relationship between lawyer-knowledge-client is changing fast, and lawyers and firms need to adjust. The concept of the Specialized Generalist can help in that direction.
